Class 11 Political Science Chapter 10 The Philosophy of the Constitution NCERT Solutions

Q. The following are certain laws. Are they connected with any value? If yes, then what is the underlying value? Give reasons.
(a) Both daughters and sons will have share in the family property.
(b) There will be different slabs of sales tax on different consumer items.
(c) Religious instructions will not be given in any government school.
(d) There shall be no begar or forced labour.

Answer:
(a) This law is connected with the value of gender equality, it ensures that sons and daughters get an equal share of family property, without discrimination based on sex.
(b) This law is not directly connected to a moral value, it is mainly an administrative/economic policy matter, though it can indirectly connect to social justice (e.g. lower tax on essential goods, higher on luxury items).
(c) This law is connected with the value of secularism, it ensures government educational institutions do not favour any one religion, so students of all faiths are treated equally.
(d) This law is connected with the value of human dignity and individual freedom, it ensures no one can be forced to work against their will.

Q. Which of the options given below cannot be used to complete the following statement? Democratic countries need a constitution to:
i. Check the power of the government.
ii. Protect minorities from majority.
iii. Bring independence from colonial rule.
iv. Ensure that a long-term vision is not lost by momentary passions.
v. Bring social change in a peaceful manner.

Answer: Option (iii) cannot be used. A constitution is not needed to “bring” independence from colonial rule, independence is achieved through struggle and political processes, the constitution is the instrument that gives institutional form to that independence AFTER it is achieved. Options (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) all correctly state real reasons for needing a constitution: checking government power, protecting minorities, safeguarding long-term vision, and enabling peaceful social change.

Q. The following are different positions about reading and understanding Constituent Assembly debates.
i. Which of these statements argues that Constituent Assembly debates are relevant even today? Which statement says that they are not relevant?
ii. With which of these positions do you agree and why?
(a) Common people are too busy in earning livelihood and meeting different pressures of life. They can’t understand the legal language of these debates.
(b) The conditions and challenges today are different from the time when the Constitution was made. To read the ideas of Constitution makers and use them for our new times is trying to bring past in the present.
(c) Our ways of understanding the world and the present challenges have not changed totally. Constituent Assembly debates can provide us reasons why certain practices are important. In a period when constitutional practices are being challenged, not knowing the reasons can destroy them.

Answer:
(i) Statement (c) argues the debates ARE relevant today. Statement (b) argues they are NOT relevant (statement (a) does not directly address relevance, it only says the legal language is difficult for common people, which is a separate issue).
(ii) I agree with statement (c), because as the chapter explains, in India (unlike in America), the conditions of the framers’ time and our present time have not changed so drastically. In terms of our values, ideals and concepts, we have not separated ourselves from the world of the Constituent Assembly, so understanding these debates helps us understand our present-day challenges too.

Q. Explain the difference between the Indian Constitution and western ideas in the light of:
(a) Understanding of secularism (b) Articles 370 and 371 (c) Affirmative action (d) Universal adult franchise

Answer:
(a) Secularism: the western conception means mutual exclusion, that is, religion and state stay completely away from each other’s affairs. The Indian conception means principled distance, that is, the state can intervene in religious matters when needed (such as to remove untouchability) or stay away, depending on the situation.
(b) Articles 370 and 371: western federalism (like in the US) treats all units symmetrically. India’s Articles 370 and 371 (and 371A) give some units special status, making Indian federalism constitutionally asymmetric.
(c) Affirmative action: in the West (e.g. the US), this began after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In India, it was built into the Constitution from the start, through SC/ST reservation, almost two decades earlier.
(d) Universal adult franchise: many stable Western democracies extended voting rights to women and the working class only quite late. India granted the vote to everyone without discrimination right from the start, when the Constitution was framed.

Q. Which of the following principles of secularism are adopted in the Constitution of India?
(a) that state will have nothing to do with religion.
(b) that state will have close relation with religion.
(c) that state can discriminate among religions.
(d) that state will recognise rights of religious groups.
(e) that state will have limited powers to intervene in affairs of religions.

Answer: (d) and (e) are the principles adopted in India. (d) is correct, the Indian Constitution grants religious communities rights such as running their own educational institutions. (e) is correct, the state has limited but real power to intervene in religious matters, such as to remove practices like untouchability. (a) is incorrect, India does not adopt a “nothing to do with religion” stance. (b) is incorrect, the state does not maintain a “close relation” with any one religion, that would violate secularism. (c) is incorrect, the state cannot discriminate between religions.

Q. Match the following.
(a) Freedom to criticise treatment of widows.
(b) Taking decisions in the constituent assembly on the basis of reason, not self interest.
(c) Accepting importance of community in an individual’s life.
(d) Article 370 and 371.
(e) Unequal rights to women regarding family property and children.
Options: (i) Substantive achievement (ii) Procedural achievement (iii) Neglect of gender justice (iv) Liberal individualism (v) Attention to requirements of a particular region

Answer:
(a) → (iv) Liberal individualism. The freedom to openly criticise a practice (here, the treatment of widows) is an example of individual freedom (liberal individualism).
(b) → (ii) Procedural achievement. Deciding on the basis of reason rather than self-interest is the procedural achievement of faith in political deliberation.
(c) → (i) Substantive achievement. Accepting the importance of community in an individual’s life is group rights (the right to the expression of cultural particularity), the third of the three core features the chapter names first, and one of the five substantive achievements in all.
(d) → (v) Attention to requirements of a particular region. Articles 370 and 371 give special treatment to particular regions (Jammu and Kashmir, the North-East) through asymmetric federalism.
(e) → (iii) Neglect of gender justice. Unequal rights for women and children in family property reflects the Constitution’s limitation regarding gender justice.

Q. This discussion was taking place in a class. Read the various arguments and state which of these do you agree with and why.
Jayesh: I still think that our Constitution is only a borrowed document.
Saba: Do you mean to say that there is nothing Indian in it? But is there such a thing as Indian and western in the case of values and ideas? Take equality between men and women. What is western about it? And even if it is, should we reject it only because it is western?
Jayesh: What I mean is that after fighting for independence from the British, did we not adopt their system of parliamentary government?
Neha: You forget that when we fought the British, we were not against the British as such, we were against the principle of colonialism. That has nothing to do with adopting a system of government that we wanted, wherever it came from.

Answer: I agree with Saba and Neha’s arguments. Saba is right that labelling a value or idea as purely “Indian” or “western” is itself mistaken, good ideas (such as equality between men and women) cannot be rejected merely because they originated elsewhere. Neha is also right that the freedom struggle was against colonialism (rule by an external, foreign power), not against any particular system of governance, so adopting a parliamentary system was a deliberate, reasoned choice, not a sign of “borrowing” or servitude. Jayesh’s argument is weaker because it focuses only on the “origin” of an idea, not its usefulness or reasonableness.

Q. Why is it said that the making of the Indian Constitution was unrepresentative? Does that make the Constitution unrepresentative? Give reasons for your answer.

Answer:
It is said to be unrepresentative because the Constituent Assembly was formed at a time when universal adult franchise had not yet been granted, and most of its members came from the advanced sections of society, that is, by the “voice” component of representation, it was indeed unrepresentative. But this does not make the Constitution entirely unrepresentative, because there is a second component of representation, “opinion”. Reading the Constituent Assembly debates shows that a very wide range of issues and views were raised, members brought up not just their personal concerns but the concerns and interests of various social sections. This is why Dr. Ambedkar’s statue with a copy of the Constitution is found in almost every small town’s central square, not as a mere symbolic tribute, but as an expression of the feeling among Dalits that the Constitution reflects many of their aspirations. So while the Constitution was unrepresentative in terms of “voice”, it was considerably representative in terms of “opinion”.

Q. One of the limitations of the Constitution of India is that it does not adequately attend to gender justice. What evidence can you give to substantiate this charge? If you were writing the Constitution today, what provisions would you recommend for remedying this limitation?

Answer:
Evidence: the Constitution does not clearly address inequalities within the family, such as unequal rights of women and children regarding family property, gender bias in personal laws governing marriage and inheritance, and issues like domestic violence. Many of these matters were left to personal laws, which often continue to carry gender inequality.
Recommendations: if writing the Constitution today, one could recommend a uniform provision guaranteeing men and women equal rights to family property and inheritance, making protection from domestic violence part of the Fundamental Rights, and a constitutional directive ensuring gender equality within the personal laws of all religions.

Q. Do you agree with the statement that “it is not clear why in a poor developing country, certain basic socio-economic rights were relegated to the section on Directive Principles rather than made an integral feature of our Fundamental Rights”? Give reasons for your answer. What do you think are the possible reasons for putting socio-economic rights in the section on Directive Principles?

Answer:
I partly agree, this is indeed a valid question. Possible reasons include: (1) India’s economy was very weak at the time, making it practically impossible to immediately guarantee and enforce all socio-economic rights (such as guaranteed employment, education, health) as Fundamental Rights. (2) Fundamental Rights are enforceable in court, if these rights had been made fundamental and the state failed to deliver them immediately, courts would repeatedly have had to declare the government in violation, which would have damaged the Constitution’s credibility. (3) By placing them as Directive Principles, they were kept as long-term goals, to be fulfilled gradually as resources allowed. Even so, this reasoning is not fully satisfactory, since some rights (like education) were later made Fundamental Rights (through the 86th Amendment), showing it was not impossible after all.

Q. How did your school celebrate the Constitution Day on November 26th?

Answer: This is a personal, school-based experience question, each student should answer based on activities held at their own school (such as a collective reading of the Preamble, speech competitions on the Constitution, essay writing, debates, or an exhibition on the makers of the Constitution).